The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Procedure for quantitatively comparing the syntactic coverage of English grammars
Abstract
The problem of quantitatively comparing the performance of different broad-coverage grammars of English has to date resisted solution. Prima facie, known English grammars appear to disagree strongly with each other as to the elements of even the simplest sentences. For instance, the grammars of Steve Abney (Bellcore), Ezra Black (IBM), Dan Flickinger (Hewlett Packard), Claudia Gdaniec (Logos), Ralph Grishman and Tomek Strzalkowski (NYU), Phil Harrison (Boeing), Don Hindle (AT&T), Bob Ingria (BBN), and Mitch Marcus (U. of Pennsylvania) recognize in common only the following constituents, when each grammarian provides the single parse which he/she would ideally want his/her grammar to specify for three sample Brown Corpus sentences:The famed Yankee Clipper, now retired, has been assisting (as (a batting coach)).One of those capital-gains ventures, in fact, has saddled him (with Gore Court).He said this constituted a (very serious) misuse (of the (Criminal court) processes).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scores
Post, M. (2018) · Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers · doi:10.18653/v1/w18-6319 · Cited by 2,112
CoNLL-X shared task on multilingual dependency parsing
Buchholz, S., & Marsi, E. (2006) · Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning - CoNLL-X '06 · doi:10.3115/1596276.1596305 · Cited by 963
Three generative, lexicalised models for statistical parsing
Collins, M. (1997) · Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - · doi:10.3115/976909.979620 · Cited by 743
The Penn Chinese TreeBank: Phrase structure annotation of a large corpus
XUE, N., XIA, F., CHIOU, F.-D., & PALMER, M. (2005) · Natural Language Engineering · doi:10.1017/s135132490400364x · Cited by 666
A new statistical parser based on bigram lexical dependencies
Collins, M. J. (1996) · Proceedings of the 34th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - · doi:10.3115/981863.981888 · Cited by 614
Metadata
- Authors
- Klavans, J., Liberman, M., Marcus, M., Roukos, S., Santorini, B., Strzalkowski, T., Abney, S., Flickenger, S., Gdaniec, C., Grishman, C., Harrison, P., Hindle, D., Ingria, R., & Jelinek, F.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the workshop on Speech and Natural Language - HLT '91
- Published
- 1991
- Pages
- 306-311
- OpenAlex
- W2087165009
- Cited by
- 432
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.49
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Procedure for quantitatively comparing the syntactic coverage of English grammars. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3115/112405.112467
- The paper
- Klavans, J., Liberman, M., Marcus, M., Roukos, S., Santorini, B., Strzalkowski, T., Abney, S., Flickenger, S., Gdaniec, C., Grishman, C., Harrison, P., Hindle, D., Ingria, R., & Jelinek, F. (1991). Procedure for quantitatively comparing the syntactic coverage of English grammars. Proceedings of the workshop on Speech and Natural Language - HLT '91. https://doi.org/10.3115/112405.112467
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
